Sunday, January 16, 2011

Jared Loughner was not a political person, so far as has been revealed to date. There is no evidence whatsoever that Loughner was inspired by, or even listened to, right wing radio or commentators, much less ever saw the 10-month old Sarah Palin electoral target map which caused numerous left-wing political types to blame Palin for the shooting.

Eric Fuller, by contrast, was a highly political person very attuned to the politics of the day. As reported by The New York Times, immediately prior to the shooting in which Fuller was one of the victims, Fuller got into a heated political argument with someone who has not yet been identified:

"Mr. Fuller was also involved in a confrontation on Jan. 8, shortly before the attack on Ms. Giffords, which occurred at an event she held for her constituents outside a Safeway supermarket. He said in a long interview last week with The New York Times that he had argued there with a man he described as a former Marine after a heated discussion over politics. Gabriel Zimmerman, an aide to Ms. Giffords, separated the two."

Now Fuller has been arrested for threatening the life of Trent Humphries, a local Tea Party leader. According to reports, Fuller had asnapped a photo of Humphries and pointed to it and said "you're dead" when Humphries rose to speak at a local forum being sponsored by ABC News. Fuller has been sent to a mental hospital for evaluation.

Was it coincidence that Humphries was targeted? Was Humphries simply someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, much like Fuller was in the wrong place at the wrong time when Jared Loughner acted out his demented fantasies?

The mainstream media and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik have been obsessed with proving causation between right-wing political speech and violence. It will be interesting to see if the media and Sheriff Dupnik look into whether Humphries was targeted by Fuller because of a widespread campaign to blame Tea Parties for the Tucson shooting, which resulted in Humphries receiving hate mail.

In particular, in the last few days there has been an effort to demonize Humphries for allegedly "blaming" Congresswoman Giffords for the shooting.

That accusation against Humphries was based on an interview Humphries gave to The Guardian newspaper in Britain in which, when asked about prior statements from Giffords expressing concern about violence, Humphries responded that if Giffords had a real fear of violence, she should have had security present (emphasis mine):

"Pressed on whether he was concerned when he heard Giffords's warning about Palin's use of gunsights and calls for supporters not to retreat but "reload" in fighting Democrats, Humphries did not retreat. "It's political gamesmanship. The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?" he said. "For all the stuff they accuse her [Palin] of, that gun poster has not done a tenth of the damage to the political discourse as what we're hearing right now. There are people who are genuinely confused, scared, and I understand it. But there are also people who are deliberately manipulating this event and tragedy for political ends.""

The sentence quoted in The Guardian article does not appear in the edited video released by The Guardian, so it is hard to understand the true context of the quote. Regardless, it is a stretch to portray Humphries as "blaming" Giffords for the shooting.

In the video released of the interview, in which the quote in question is not presented, Humphries was quite effusive in his praise of Giffords and had only kind words for her:

Nonetheless, the left-wing media -- including outlets in Arizona -- took this slender reed and spun it into a campaign to accuse Humphries of blaming Giffords for the shooting. Here is just a sampling:

Did this demonization of Humphries cause a "climate of hate" against Humphries in which Fuller got caught up? The subject has not even been touched upon in the news reports I have seen. Those news reports either fail to mention that Humphries was a Tea Party leader, or if they do, fail to mention the recent campaign of vilification against Humphries.

Jared Loughner alone is responsible for his acts of homicide and assault, so too Eric Fuller alone is responsible for his death threat. It would not make a difference if Loughner were a right-wing media junkie, just as it doesn't make a difference that Fuller was steeped in left-wing politics.

The issue is the inherent mainstream media bias in how it treats perpetrators depending upon their politics and victims, seeking political context for crimes only when convenient.

The media politicized the Loughner shooting because his intended victim was a Democratic Congresswoman and the media therefore projected assumed political ideas onto Loughner where none existed. By contrast, Fuller is treated as someone suffering from mental illness whose politics are irrelevant.

Shouldn't the mainstream media at least put the Fuller threat in the political "context" of anti-Tea Party vitriol since the media insists on making up a political context for Jared Loughner? Or is the context one in which the mainstream media is not interested because the victim of the threat was a Tea Party leader?

It's going to be very difficult keeping the liberal MSM on the straight and narrow when Fox News itself is fully on board with trashing Sarah Palin and endorsing the "new civility" meme. Just watch today's Fox News Sunday panel discussion and tell me if I'm wrong. Is it part of the GOP campaign of damning the Tea Party with faint praise?

Speaking as a personal friend of Mr. Fullers I would ask that everyone show some respect. Granted Eric has some very defined views however no one should be made a villain for his views. I will say Eric could have handled things differently but let us not forget he is one of the victims. Those of you who advocate the right to bear arms are asking us who disagree to accept your point of view. Well how about those of us do not believe everyone should have a firearm. Why are we made out to be crazy? And while it is obvious that Palin's website was not the cause of this incident. It certainly wouldn't hurt to tone things down a bit. No matter what side of the issues you are on, I think we can all agree that innocent American citizens do not need to die ! We are all part of the same planet so it would be better to come to a middle ground than throw digs at each other. I certainly recognize your right to bear arms. However, I would be more comfortable if less people had guns. I also recognize that my opinion is my own, as is yours. I will offer this. The right to bear arms was written in a time when this was a very different world. Since our current world is vastly different, perhaps we should revisit the issue so that both you and I can exist in a community that belongs to us both.I certainly appreciate all of the comments, and I do agree that Eric has handled himself poorly. Additionally I am not an anti-gun person. I personally do not have an interest in guns but I do believe that if you indeed choose to have guns as a part of your life than more power to you.That being said, I offer you this. Just this morning I went to the local Circle K to get some coffee, and lo and behold, two middle aged men came in to shop. Both men were armed. Why do we need to be packing heat to go get a cup of coffee? And why as a patron of the Circle K am I not entitled to shop without the worry or random customers (who are strangers in my eyes, who is to say they may not snap) carrying firearms. Why did these individuals feel the need to be armed at a Circle K. Was there a threat of some kind?

I am not a political radical, or a left wing extremist, I am just an average citizen who does not understand the need for everyday citizens to carry guns, just because they have a right to.

And also, I have done my best to be respectful in my posts and I ask that you do the same. We are all entitled to our opinion.

I do not know why anyone is surprised with the irrational hyperbole of the talking heads and so-called journalists of the left, taking advantage of the senseless deaths of Americans to further their left-wing agenda. It is a tactic that has been used for four and a half decades. One that has served the left well.

In 1965, Americans were trying to make sense out of another senseless death, the assassination of John Kennedy, wondering how a man like Lee Harvey Oswald could reach a point where he felt he had no other choice but to quelch the life of a man so beloved by almost the entire nation.

November of that year, Columbia professor, and former Communist, Richard Hofstadter wrote an article for Harper's Magazine entitled "The Paranoid Style of American Politics." Hofstadter began his article as follows:

"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demostrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority."

Hofstadter became a guru of the left, claiming that "right-wingers" were no more than paranoid opportunists who would use any methodd to gain power. His books are still taught in liberal universities and his tactics are still used, to this day, by the left who claim the same.

Now, throw in a healthy dose of Saul Alinsky, who put Hofstadter's ideas into practical application. And what you have is what we have experience in the last week.

Hofstadter's ideas and Alinsky's practical tactics are not going to go away. They have worked for those on the left who want to demonize their political opponents for 45 years. Why change what works?

Nah, they will adopt the "thurston howell III" tone and commit all of this to the dustbin of history now that the story isn't going their way. Next up, .."whoa, looky there! Oprah Winfrey (or whomever else it may be) is coming out of the closet! So brave!" Anything to shift the focus away from the horrible economy.

Speaking as a personal friend of Mr. Fullers I would ask that everyone show some respect. Granted Eric has some very defined views however no one should be made a villain for his views. I will say Eric could have handled things differently but let us not forget he is one of the victims.

Oh, brother.

1. We wouldn't even be discussing Fuller if HE had shown respect.

2. Fuller wasn't "made a villain for his views," he was criticized for his opinions, which happen to be ill-informed and impulsive nonsense.

3. So freakin' what if he is one of the victims? Of all the survivors of Loughner's rampage, he is the ONLY one who has been arrested for making a death threat to somebody else -- AND NOT EVEN TO ANYONE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIM BEING SHOT!

And while it is obvious that Palin's website was not the cause of this incident. It certainly wouldn't hurt to tone things down a bit. No matter what side of the issues you are on, I think we can all agree that innocent American citizens do not need to die !

Can we agree then that your personal friend Eric Fuller made a death threat to a man who had no connection whatsoever with the shootings?

Can we agree that your personal friend Eric Fuller is in need of psychiatric help?

Can we agree that irresponsible, bogus accusations by cynical left-wingers helped persuade your troubled friend that he was being reasonable and his imagined "enemies" were worthy of death?

On Jan 16, at 1:12pm JOHN said: “That being said, I offer you this. Just this morning I went to the local Circle K to get some coffee, and lo and behold, two middle aged men came in to shop. Both men were armed. Why do we need to be packing heat to go get a cup of coffee? And why as a patron of the Circle K am I not entitled to shop without the worry or random customers (who are strangers in my eyes, who is to say they may not snap) carrying firearms. Why did these individuals feel the need to be armed at a Circle K. Was there a threat of some kind?”

Random acts of violence are called random for a reason because they are random and we don’t know when they will strike. You can’t say to the shooter “Excuse me Mr. Shooter, I didn’t think there would be any random acts of violence today, could you let me go get my piece from home?” Nobody expected people to get shot at Rep Giffords’ meet and greet, yet it happened. Nobody expected 32 students at Virginia Tech to get shot, yet it happened. Nobody expected five students to get gunned down at Northern Illinois University, yet it happened. While shooting like those mentioned above are very rare (and unpredictable), what is wrong with being prepared. John mentioned that he was worried these strangers had guns. But if someone had decided that the local Circle K needed to be shot up (random), those two guys would have become your best friends because they could save your life.

There are thousands upon thousand of people who are permitted to carry in Arizona. So what are the odds that some stranger is going to gun you down at the local Circle K, the Chevron Station, or at the local driving range? Probably pretty dang low. But just the law abiding citizen causing you problems the odds of you getting shot up in a tragedy like Tucson are also quite remote. But wouldn’t you want either you and someone else to have the ability to take down the shooter before he does too much damage?

Contributors

These Are Only MY Opinions

In case you were wondering, all opinions and views expressed on this blog are my own, and do not represent the views of any employer or other organization.

Terms of Use

By using this blog, you agree that all original content on this blog is copyright of William A. Jacobson. You may quote from my posts provided that you clearly identify me as the author, link to the original post or home address of this blog, and do not charge for access to the website, publication or other media in which the quote appears. Although comments are moderated, I accept no responsibility for what other people say, and I reserve the right to block or remove any comment for any reason or no reason. Any e-mails sent to me are subject to publication, and any disputes regarding this site will be litigated exclusively in the jurisidiction in which I reside at the time of the dispute.